IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.18287 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.11.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Hem Singh and Others ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Surender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that his clients would be content and satisfied in case their pending representations (Annexure P-4 Colly) are considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma and Another Vs. State of H.P. and Others, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that he is not not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and representations, if any, filed by the petitioners shall be considered and decided in accordance with the aforesaid judgment. 2 3. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representations (Annexure P-4 Colly) of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mohit Sharma case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. November 26, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge